Pages

March 26, 2010

Democrat Stockholm Syndrome

“Segments of populations under chronic
siege commonly embrace the indictments of the besiegers, however bigoted and
outrageous. They hope that by doing so and reforming accordingly they can
assuage the hostility of their tormenters and win relief.” – Dr. Kenneth Levin,
The Oslo Syndrome

What happens when people become intimidated and frightened by terrorism? Might
some of them side with the terrorists? These were two questions posed by David
Kupelian, author of How Evil Works:
Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming
America.

In August of 1973, a bank robbery in Sweden opened the door to a phenomenon
that is faced by many in the law enforcement community. During a hostage
situation that lasted for more than five days, the captives, consisting of
three women and one man, were bound, gagged and terrorized. Yet, strangely,
while they were going through this hell, the hostages developed a strong bond
and an emotional attachment with their attackers. This phenomenon of captives
bonding emotionally with their captors is called the “Stockholm Syndrome.”

According to Kupelian, clinical characteristics of “Stockholm Syndrome” include
the following:

ocaptives start to identify with
their captors

ocaptives
realize that rescue attempts are dangerous and could result in their being hurt
or killed

olong-term
captivity fosters an emotional attachment to the captor as the victim learns of
the captor’s problems

Under what circumstances would Jews support
the Nazi party? How about Israel supporting Hamas? Before you scoff, according
to Kupelian, Israel is exhibiting signs of "Stockholm Syndrome" in its
appeasement with radical terrorism in the name of peace.

Are
you following me?

In the 1960s, almost a century after emancipation, Americans of African
descent, over the span of two election cycles, inexplicably gave their
allegiance in the form of suffrage... to the Democrat party, the very party
that exclusively persecuted them for 70 years prior (Ku Klux Klan, separate but
equal, Jim Crow laws, nightriders, lynchings, beatings, poll tax, voter
intimidation, dogs, riots, burnings, church bombings, and fire hoses… democrats).

Mind-boggling.

For years I’ve been trying to understand why Americans of African descent
abandoned their rich history in the Republican party -- a party that was formed
in their defense, that they embraced once emancipated, that helped elect
America’s first black Congressmen and Senators, that championed almost every
piece of civil rights legislation in this country -- in exchange for the party
that persecuted, terrorized, killed and tortured their parents, grand parents
and ancestors for generations, and is a millstone around their necks today.

I think I am starting to understand.

Americans
of African descent are suffering from “Democrat Stockholm Syndrome.”After a century of
being beaten, battered and terrorized by Democrats, Dixiecrats, and the like, southern
Americans of African descent were tired and worn down.Today, evidence of “Democrat Stockholm
Syndrome” is obvious as black Americans have ultimately come to identify with
and believe in their tormentors’ cause… the disenfranchisement of the black
race -- illustrated by
the alarming rate at which we kill our own unborn babies through legalized
abortion (the first black President of the United States even supports Planned
Parenthood, a terrorist arm of the Democrat party), to the degree of
satisfaction with American of African descent children being warehoused in
dilapidated underperforming and often violent public schools run by Democrats...

My, how things haven’t changed!

Over the decades, Democrats have gone
from being pro-slavery, pro-segregation and pro-eugenics, to being pro-choice
for abortion, anti-choice for education and anti-business... different day,
same party.

Americans of African descent were once
a proud people with self-esteem, moral conviction and an abiding faith in God –
even while in physical bondage. Today, Americans of African descent are doing a
better job of destroying and denigrating their own, than old school, racist, KKK
Democrats did to the black Republicans of their day.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can
refer to Barack Obama as a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro
dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” in the shadow of Robert Byrd and still
have the President, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the whole congressional
black caucus forgive and support him in his bid to get re-elected.I'm all about forgiveness, but let us
remember that a few years back Trent Lot lost his position as Majority Leader
and was almost destroyed for uttering a birthday wish to an old segregationist
who made the fatal mistake of repenting of his racism and switching his
allegiance to the Republican party.

Same Democrat party. Same destructive
mindset. Same paralyzing practices.

The only difference is that now
Americans of African descent actually identify with, believe in, and support
their tormentors’ cause. They even use the same racially hate-filled epithets
that former slave owners used when excoriating their newly freed black
Republican nemeses (You should read my hate mail!).

Blacks today are bonded to Democrats and
their dependence on liberalism has marginalized the race.

There are, however, still black
Republican voices crying out in the wilderness in defense of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. What has changed is the color of their opposition.

To be black and a Democrat should make
just about as much sense as being a Jew and a Nazi.

Which doesn’t make sense.

Blacks’ dependence on
Democrats and big government is the new slavery. It’s
an abomination.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

why is this so hard to understand? black vote is split until 1965, when the GOP nominates for president a guy (Goldwater) that voted against the civil rights act. That essentially forced black people to vote for LBJ. and to solidify that crossover, the GOP embraced southern democrats that left the party. Strom Thurmond is the most famous example.

seriously, what's so amazing about that? erasing history won't change the reason the GOP lost the black vote. Conservatives used race as a wedge issue and they reaped the benefits. No different then what they currently do to gays on the marriage issue, what they currently do to hispanics on the immigration issue, etc. NO minority votes GOP. period.

There is this perception that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was perfect in every way and should have been rejected by no one.

I know I wouldn't vote for Barry Goldwater (his abortion stance) but when it came to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he opposed it because of Title II, which outlawed discrimination in hotels, restaurants, etc.

In other words, he didn't want government telling restaurants, hotels, etc. who to serve.

James, you have written an excellent piece!! This phenomenon has puzzled me as well, for as long as I remember. The explanation that you and Dr. Levin give makes a great deal of sense, and makes me grieve for our people deeply. I am grateful that not everyone is "drinking the Koolaid", though, and that the sleeping giant is waking up... evidenced in part by those blacks who are grounded, common-sense Conservatives, and who have the courage to take action for and in the country we love!

why goldwater opposed it is immaterial to the desired outcome of the legislation.

on a sidenote, this is getting into dog whistle politics and how conservatives tainted the small government movement by allowing it to merge with segregationists. Goldwater's objections may have been constitutional, but his supporter's concerns about the civil rights act weren't so noble.

derek, your assumption (you said: "That essentially forced black people to vote for LBJ.") about the civil rights act was that black people basically had to embrace it on account of being black. That's the same reasoning that seems so prevalent today to explain why so many black people vote Democrat - they're just following the policies that are good for black people!

But what if you don't agree that Democratic policies are good for black people?

Again, I think that you're on to something in the "black shift" here, but your underlying assumption is that black people have to go along with Democrat policy because that's what's best for them. As you see on this very blog, that's not always the case.

The problem comes with separating legitimate concerns from the shameless racial opportunism that birthed the modern gop coalition of southern whites. Are we far enough removed from integration that when, for example, conservatives take issues with forced busing/school districts drawn with racial considerations, i can take it that they are arguing in good faith rather than going wink wink to their southern base? That's the fundamental issue. And that's a mess of the GOP's own creation. The fact that conservatives say "state's rights!" and then black people get suspicious isn't the fault of black people

but i'm not here to debate heart of atlanta motel v. US. The reasoning for opposing something doesn't purify the outcome of opposition.No one says "oh, it's ok that he's against what i'm fighting for, because he's not racist"

Well, if you're going to say that black people should be suspicious of conservative whites simply because the GOP houses some racists, then is it not also legitimate if I fear the Democratic administration because of connections to communists like Van Jones? Any conservative who uses the word "socialism" or "communism" is totally derided as a rube, but you then go and say black people have every right to get suspicious of potential racist intentions on the GOP side.

When Barack Obama argues that health care legislation is going to reduce costs, can I take it that he's arguing in good faith rather than going wink wink to his liberal base?

Of course politicians are going to cater to their base. They're selfish just like most of us. What I'm concerned about is the policy.

the difference is that there is no socialist or communist powerbase in america. But there IS a history of slavery and segregation. Conservatives that fear communism fear a boogeyman. Older blacks that fear racism fear an america they grew up in.

"You do realize that goldwater lost the constitutional argument about the civil rights act? it's still around for a reason."

I'm not sure the Federal Reserve is constitutional, but that's been around for nearly a hundred years.

Democrats' view of "winning an argument," clearly, is whether or not what law they wanted to pass passed. We saw that this past week. "The time for debate has passed..."

You said "The reasoning for opposing something doesn't purify the outcome of opposition."

Does that also mean that the reason for supporting something doesn't purify the outcome of supporting it? If the United States is the #4 economic power in 20 years and is crumbling under the weight of its bloated government and massive debt, are politicians still pure because they voted for so much government expansion?

"the difference is that there is no socialist or communist powerbase in america. But there IS a history of slavery and segregation. Conservatives that fear communism fear a boogeyman. Older blacks that fear racism fear an america they grew up in."

Really? There's no socialist base in America? Take a look at the top three elected officials in charge of the mammajammin country.

I'm sorry do you want me to simply repost all my posts from this thread? Why do we just skip over the 65 realignment like it didn't happened? why do i have to pretend southern states didn't start voting republican in 65 and blacks didn't start voting democrat the same year? why do i have to pretend that it wasn't the GOP that made a conscious effort to merge conservatism with segregationists? I can't tell if this is some tongue in cheek way of getting back at the left for exploiting the right's flirtation with segregationists, or if you simply have no knowledge of political history

i mean damn, you might as well make a post arguing that progressives should vote republican because Teddy Roosevelt was republican. You can't stop history where you want it, and then pretend nothing else ever happened before or after.

I never thought of this as stockholm syndrome... quite true... However, the fact that most black people are still slaves is quite apparent.
The ghettos are like slave quarters of the old days. And the black democrats in congress are like house slaves!
In 2010 the Democrat Party has blacks enslaved to a degree thats really impressive.
Considering that slavery, really begins in the mind. It seems like during the plantation times, slaves werent taught anything. That way, their minds were still intact and they wanted to be free. Ahhh!!! But now, with public schools, the dems can enslave minds from kindergarten age!
Yes, its quite obvious. Dems make a lot more money, and live a lot more comfortably with this type of slavery than they did in the old south.
Though, Im not exactly sure what the reality of slavery was in those days. I mean, Ive heard that a lot of slaves were quite comfortable. Harriet Tubman, I remember, had a hard time getting slaves to escape. Now how much more difficult it is to get people out of this mental slavery...
But those slaves, with unpoisoned hearts and minds and souls, appeared to be godly, dignified and intelligent.
Its also pretty hilarious that these current descendents of that reality really think Obama is black. I wonder, if he really has any knowledge of those trials and tribulations. Id like someone to catch him off guard ( sans teleprompter) and ask him about Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglass. I bet he has no idea. Ask him about Karl Marx though and I bet he can go on all day! Even without a script!
What a world! What a world!

"...conservatives take issues with forced busing/school districts drawn with racial considerations..." derek... you trying to tell us the Irish-Catholics in Boston who so vehemently opposed busing/ integration in early 70s were "conservative" Democrats? Prove it!

derek. I'll forgive the democrat party for giving us Obama & socialism... isn't it time you forgive the republican party for "almost" giving us Goldwater? At least Goldwater had no chance to destroy the country.

You are definitely intelligent enough to see that this in a large way does exist (the syndrome).

In a nushell, a larger, more powerful Federal government, is a bad thing for this country. One that at his point, will take many years to fix. And it didn't start with the first year of BHO, he just put it into hyperdrive.